jamal 
The Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, has vacated the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and companies linked to her, ruling that the continued enforcement of the ex parte order for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process.
The unanimous judgment was delivered on Wednesday by a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche. The appellate court discharged the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, on April 10, 2025.
The matter arose from an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following the Federal High Court’s ruling of August 27, 2025. The lower court had granted the Commission’s ex parte application freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, and restraining the affected financial institutions from processing outward transactions on the accounts.
Achimugu subsequently applied to have the order set aside, contending that its prolonged duration constituted an abuse of judicial process. She further alleged that, despite the subsisting freezing order, the EFCC directed SunTrust Bank, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.
The Federal High Court held that the transfer was unlawful and ordered the immediate return of the funds. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its judgment during the judiciary’s annual vacation, denied the Commission fair hearing by granting an unsolicited relief, and failed to properly evaluate the affidavit evidence relating to the disputed accounts.
In the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that the delivery of a reserved judgment during the annual court vacation does not constitute the conduct of general legal business and does not invalidate the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the Commission’s allegation of a denial of fair hearing, noting that both parties had filed additional affidavits on the disputed transfer and were afforded adequate opportunity to present their respective cases before the trial court.
However, the appellate court found that the ₦1.8 billion in dispute originated from a fixed deposit account that was not among the accounts covered by the interim freezing order. The court observed that the accounts specifically frozen were current accounts with substantially lower balances and that the evidence before the trial court did not establish any connection between those accounts and the transferred funds.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal set aside the Federal High Court’s order directing the reversal of the ₦1.8 billion transfer. It, however, clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s directive authorizing the movement of the funds.
On Achimugu’s substantive application, the appellate court reaffirmed that interim ex parte freezing orders are temporary preservative measures intended to remain in force only pending the hearing of a motion on notice. The court held that allowing such an order to subsist for more than 15 months was inconsistent with its intended purpose and amounted to an abuse of court process.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal discharged and vacated in its entirety the interim freezing order issued against Achimugu and the corporate entities linked to her.
The judgment reinforces the principle that while investigative agencies possess statutory powers to preserve assets during the course of financial crime investigations, the exercise of those powers must remain subject to due process, judicial oversight, and the timely review of interim orders in accordance with established legal principles
